>Want to run a 3.5/PF campaign
>Hate all of the bloat and options though
>Just want to run a decent fantasy game with humans and the standard wizard/rogue/cleric/fighter/barbarian/paladin type classes
>Not something where everyone is a different weird race and a gunslinger/alchemist/antipaladin/whatever
>People would just get mad and complain if I told them they couldn't use certain classes and races
Has anyone made a system that works virtually the same as 3.P but with all of the bloat and shit shaved off?
>>47252561
Fantasycraft.
>>47252561
2e or 5e might be a decent alternative. 2e is more straightforward and it's easier to say no to splats. 5e hasn't had time to really bloat out yet, and has plenty of rules that say 'the DM can totally say no to this'
>>47252561
Isn't that pretty much exactly what 5e is?
I will agree I hate it a little too, but at the same time I really like the all the customizetion options it brings. In a way you can really make "your" character special.
>>47252561
>People would just get mad and complain if I told them they couldn't use certain classes and races
Are you sure? Have you tried it? I've been in several games with restricted races/classes and everyone's had a blast anyways.
>>47252561
5e
2e
OSR
Fantasycraft
Dungeon WorldGURPS
>>47253424
>Have you tried it?
Yes.
>>47252561
5th Edition or FantasyCraft. I recommend 5E for being immensely user-friendly.
>>47252561
>People would just get mad and complain if I told them they couldn't use certain classes and races
Make it clear and obvious well in advance, ideally while recruiting, and use a prewritten whitelist.
If people already know coming in "Humans only, core classes only", then there's likely to be infinitely less bitching and anybody who does bitch can be kicked out with zero hesitation.
>>47252822
Yes.
Who the fuck is claiming people don't play FC for all the fucked up races? Only experienced players build more standard tropes after tree people are core.
>>47253019
This entirely. I don't want something crazy, but if I want to make a swordsman who has a very very limited selection of moderately strong spells (no I don't want to choose from the wizard list, I want something more akin to sorcerer powers), I can take the archetypes to make it happen.
>playing 3.PF
>using the fucking standard classes(i.e the least balanced, most broken, and least interesting classes in the game).
Why?
>>47254974
You can easily take the weirder stuff out.
soo, 5e?
you literally just described 5e. restrict dragonborn (maybe they don't exist/serve dragons in your setting) and drow/genasi/bird men if you don't want stupid races
>>47252561
So....... you want to play 5e.
>>47255503
>genasi
>stupid race
You shut your whore mouth
Well you've pretty much described 5th ed, so there's that
I don't know if Fantasy Craft really fits the bill here though for better or worse though. I wouldn't call it less complicated or more traditional
>>47252561
Play OSRIC
Definitely Fantasy Craft. Humans have immense variety, so playing with only humans is a very viable choice. All the classes are super general as well, so you won't have anything too snowflakey. There are lots of options, but unlike 3.PF, all the options are good - you won't be spending two feats on being able to trip someone without a -4. Even better, magic is balanced and simplified.
>>47252561
5e, FantasyCraft if you want something heavier, 2e still has some bloat but it's not as present if you don't want it to be.
>>47255268
More than that, FantasyCraft explicitly tells you that nothing is taken for granted and all races/campaign qualities need to be confirmed with the GM first.
>>47252561
>Hate all of the bloat and options though
Then why the fuck do you want to run a 3.PF game? That's its only redeeming feature - it's a fucking awful game for running the kind of game you want.
>>47256875
>player tries to make ogre-blood draconic heritage palm snid
